See I'm a bit torn here. I'm definitely going to include Grace in my eleven, but obviously England's opening candidates are a lot better than their middle order ones, so I'd prefer to include him in the middle order if I could. I'm just not sure if that's feasible based on where Grace actually batted. I know he opened in all bar one of his Test innings but I'm not actually picking him on the basis of his Test career so I'm more interested in learning if he spent much time in the middle order in county cricket, which is something I don't really know.

As a general principle I think it safe to say that 1,2 or 3 batsman can bat at 4, 5, or 6 with relative ease. But the reverse is not true.

If WG Grace floats your boat, then sure, why not bat him in the middle order?

As a general principle I think it safe to say that 1,2 or 3 batsman can bat at 4, 5, or 6 with relative ease. But the reverse is not true.

If WG Grace floats your boat, then sure, why not bat him in the middle order?

Well if I had to list England's best six ever batsmen in order of how highly I rated them, I'd probably roll with Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Compton. And while I agree that it's easier for openers to slide down the order a bit than the other way around, picking four openers and a #3 as my 1-5 in the batting lineup would take the piss slightly.

Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.

On the Sutcliffe v Hutton debate, there is definitely a statistical backing for the idea that Sutcliffe benefited from weaker attacks a little more of the two. When I standardised their averages Hutton's went from 56.67 to 53.94 (95%) while Sutcliffe's went from 60.73 to 56.11 (92%) but certainly neither played in the toughest era to be a batsman by any stretch of the imagination.

Longevity is why I put Hutton ahead though; he got the equivalent of almost 13 years worth of Tests in, while Sutcliffe didn't make 10. Unpopular reasoning for picking someone so I won't go into that again too much.

On the Sutcliffe v Hutton debate, there is definitely a statistical backing for the idea that Sutcliffe benefited from weaker attacks a little more of the two. When I standardised their averages Hutton's went from 56.67 to 53.94 (95%) while Sutcliffe's went from 60.73 to 56.11 (92%) but certainly neither played in the toughest era to be a batsman by any stretch of the imagination.

Longevity is why I put Hutton ahead though; he got the equivalent of almost 13 years worth of Tests in, while Sutcliffe didn't make 10. Unpopular reasoning for picking someone so I won't go into that again too much.

He played for bloody ages too; his scorebook average dropped 4 runs in his last 6 Tests, all played after his 47th birthday. He'd probably have a standardised average pushing 60 if his career was Sutcliffe sized or even Hutton sized.

Well if I had to list England's best six ever batsmen in order of how highly I rated them, I'd probably roll with Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Compton. And while I agree that it's easier for openers to slide down the order a bit than the other way around, picking four openers and a #3 as my 1-5 in the batting lineup would take the piss slightly.

Do you think that your favoured batting line-up of....

01. Grace
02. Hobbs
03. Hammond
04. Hutton
05. Sutcliffe
06. Compton

....would score more runs than a more conventional line-up? Such as;

01. Grace
02. Hobbs
03. Hammond
04. Barrington
05. May
06. Compton

If you do think that your unconventional line-up would score more runs then why not select it? After all, the main objective is to win the Test match, is it not?

If you do think that your unconventional line-up would score more runs then why not select it? After all, the main objective is to win the Test match, is it not?

I'd probably not actually bat them in that order; that was just an order of best to worst. Sutcliffe from what I know would be less suited to move down the order than the rest, so I'd probably stick him in at opener and roll with:

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. Hutton
4. Hammond
5. Grace
6. Compton

I'm torn over whether I'd back that lineup to score more runs than one with May or Barrington in for Sutcliffe and a reshuffle though, for instance. Batting the openers out of position gives the team a higher ceiling (ie. if they take to it then it'll better than the alternative) but also a low floor (you increase the chance of outright failure by doing something largely unproven).

I'd probably not actually bat them in that order; that was just an order of best to worst. Sutcliffe from what I know would be less suited to move down the order than the rest, so I'd probably stick him in at opener and roll with:

1. Hobbs
2. Sutcliffe
3. Hutton
4. Hammond
5. Grace
6. Compton

I'm torn over whether I'd back that lineup to score more runs than one with May or Barrington in for Sutcliffe and a reshuffle though, for instance. Batting the openers out of position gives the team a higher ceiling (ie. if they take to it then it'll better than the alternative) but also a low floor (you increase the chance of outright failure by doing something largely unproven).

I guess Hutton and Grace are unproven in the middle-order, but the risk must be small. About the only problems they'll encounter is the strange task of facing an old ball and tired bowlers first-up, and a loss of concentration because they're suffering from boredom after waiting too long in the dressing room.

Its not the easiest thing for a normal opener to come into the middle order against a quality spinner when on 0.

Hobbs and Hutton are my votes for sure.

Good point. I guess it would be a potential problem to a new ball specialist to face a spin bowler 'cold'. Although it does seem a bit odd being that Hutton et al would have to face spinners after intervals, or at the beginning of a new day farely regularly.